IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20-1401

Filed December 16, 2020

IN THE INTEREST OF N.M. and S.M.,

Minor Children,

K.M., Father,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon, 

District Associate Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children. 

AFFIRMED.

Douglas Cook of Cook Law Firm, Jewell, for appellant father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Gregory H. Stoebe, Humboldt, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor 

children.

Considered by Bower, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Scott, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 

(2020).
2

SCOTT, Senior Judge.

The children, born in born in 2007 and 2010, came to the attention of the 

Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) in May 2019 upon the mother’s 

inadequate care for the children and methamphetamine use. The parents were no 

longer together, having separated in 2015. The children had already been 

voluntarily placed in the care of their maternal grandparents since October 2018, 

and the children have not lived with the father on a full-time basis since 2015. The 

father was advised of DHS involvement, and he reported he had recently relapsed 

on methamphetamine. The father was initially resistant to participating in services. 

The State filed a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) petition in July 2019, after 

which the father entered a contract of expectations calling for, among other things, 

his maintenance of sobriety and participation in substance-abuse and mentalhealth treatment. In August, the court adjudicated the children CINA and ordered 

their formal removal from parental custody. 

This thirty-five-year-old father has a long history of alcohol and substance 

abuse, dating back roughly twenty years. In his testimony at the termination 

hearing, he testified his drug of choice was methamphetamine and acknowledged 

he relapsed multiple times since the children’s formal removal—in October, 

November, and December 2019; and February, March, April, July, September, and 

October 2020—and some of those relapses progressed to periods of continuous 

use, despite the father’s various participation in substance-abuse treatment. At 

the time of the termination hearing in mid-October, the father testified he was eight 

to ten days sober. He testified the root of his substance abuse are his mentalhealth issues, which he has not meaningfully addressed through mental-health 
3

treatment. The father had also been unemployed since late July, and his visits 

with the children continued to be fully supervised due to his substance abuse. 

At the termination hearing, the father requested additional time to work 

toward reunification. Three separate service providers testified to their opinion the 

children could not be returned to the father’s care within six months because of his 

ongoing substance abuse. The children have been in the care of their maternal 

grandparents, where they wish to remain, since October 2018, and the 

grandparents intend to adopt the children. 

Ultimately, the juvenile court denied the father’s request for additional time 

to work toward reunification and terminated his parental rights pursuant to Iowa 

Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2020). The father appeals.1 He challenges 

the sufficiency of evidence supporting the statutory grounds for termination, claims 

termination is contrary to the children’s best interests, and requests an additional 

six months to work toward reunification. 

Appellate review of orders terminating parental rights is de novo. In re L.T., 

924 N.W.2d 521, 526 (Iowa 2019). Our primary consideration is the best interests 

of the children, In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006), the defining elements 

of which are the children’s safety and need for a permanent home. In re H.S., 805

N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011). 

While the father purports to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the statutory grounds for termination, he does not specifically target any 

of the elements of the grounds for termination. In any event we find the evidence 

 

1 The children’s mother’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to her consent. 

She does not appeal. 
4

clear and convincing that the children are four years of age or older, have been 

adjudicated CINA, have been removed from parental custody for the last twelve 

months with no trial periods at home, and could not be returned to the father’s care 

at the time of the termination hearing. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f); In re D.W., 

791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010) (interpreting the statutory language “at the 

present time” to mean “at the time of the termination hearing”). We affirm 

termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f). See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707 

(“[W]e may affirm the juvenile court’s termination order on any ground that we find 

supported by clear and convincing evidence.”).

We turn to the children’s best interests. In determining whether termination 

is in the best interests of a child, we “give primary consideration to the child’s 

safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of 

the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the 

child.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). The father has simply not progressed to a point 

at which his children can be returned to his care. The father continued to relapse 

on methamphetamine throughout the proceedings. While the father testified to his 

plan to get his substance abuse in check, he inappropriately waited until the eve 

of termination to begin taking any fruitful steps to address his substance-abuse 

issues, which is too late. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000). While 

the father did variously participate in substance-abuse treatment, he continued to 

relapse. “It is well-settled law that we cannot deprive a child of permanency after 

the State has proved a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) by hoping 

someday a parent will . . . be able to provide a stable home for the child.” In re 

A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 777 (Iowa 2012) (quoting In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39
5

(Iowa 2010)). We conclude the father has been given ample time to get his affairs 

in order and these children’s best interests are best served by providing 

permanency and stability now. See id. at 778 (“It is simply not in the best interests 

of children to continue to keep them in temporary foster homes while the natural 

parents get their lives together.” (quoting In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 

1997))). 

On appeal, the father echoes his request for additional time to work toward 

reunification. If, following a termination hearing, the court does not terminate 

parental rights but finds there is clear and convincing evidence that the child is a 

child in need of assistance, the court may enter an order in accordance with section 

232.104(2)(b). Iowa Code § 232.117(5). Section 232.104(2)(b) affords the 

juvenile court the option to continue placement of a child for an additional six 

months if the court finds “the need for removal . . . will no longer exist at the end of 

the additional six-month period.” The juvenile court was unable to conclude the 

need for removal would no longer exist at the end of an extension. Upon our de 

novo review, neither can we. Given the father’s long history of substance abuse 

and demonstrated cycle of relapse during these proceedings, we conclude an 

extension of time is unwarranted, and we affirm the termination of the father’s 

parental rights.

AFFIRMED.